The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier •
This document is prepared for humanity by Dr. David E. Martin.
This work was supported, in part, by a fund-raising effort in which
approximately 330 persons contributed funds in support of the New Earth
technology team and Urban Global Health Alliance. It is released under a Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC-SA. Any derivative use of this dossier must be made public for the benefit
of others. All documents,
references and disclosures contained herein are subject to an AS-IS
representation. The author
does not bear responsibility for errors in the public record or
references therein. Throughout this document, uses of terms commonly accepted in medical
and scientific literature do not imply acceptance or rejection of the
dogma that they represent.
Background:
Over the past two decades, my company – M·CAM – has been monitoring
possible violations of the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in
War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or other Gases, and of Bacteriological
Methods of Warfare (the Geneva Protocol) 1972 Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction (the BTWC). In our 2003-2004
Global Technology Assessment: Vector WeaponizationM·CAM highlighted China’s growing involvement in Polymerase Chain
Reaction (PCR) technology with respect to joining the world stage in
chimeric construction of viral vectors. Since that time, on a weekly basis, we have monitored the development of
research and commercial efforts in this field, including, but not limited
to, the research synergies forming between the United States Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes for
Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), Harvard University, Emory University,
Vanderbilt University, Tsinghua University, University of Pennsylvania,
many other research institutions, and their commercial affiliations.
The National Institute of Health’s grant AI23946-08 issued to Dr. Ralph
Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (officially
classified as affiliated with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID by at least 2003)
began the work on synthetically altering the
Coronaviridae
(the coronavirus family) for the express purpose of general research,
pathogenic enhancement, detection, manipulation, and potential
therapeutic interventions targeting the same. As early as May 21, 2000, Dr. Baric and UNC sought to patent critical
sections of the coronavirus family for their commercial benefit.[1] In one of the several
papers derived from work sponsored by this grant, Dr. Baric published
what he reported to be the full length cDNA of SARS CoV in which it was
clearly stated that SAR CoV was based on a composite of DNA
segments.
“Using a panel of contiguous cDNAs that span the entire genome, we have
assembled a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV Urbani strain, and have
rescued molecularly cloned SARS viruses (infectious clone SARS-CoV) that
contained the expected marker mutations inserted into the component
clones.”[2]
On April 19, 2002 – the Spring before the first SARS outbreak in Asia –
Christopher M. Curtis, Boyd Yount, and Ralph Baric filed an application
for U.S. Patent 7,279,372 for a method of producing recombinant
coronavirus. In the first
public record of the claims, they sought to patent a means of producing,
“an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus.” This work was supported by the NIH grant referenced above and
GM63228. In short, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services was involved in the funding of
amplifying the infectious nature of coronavirus between 1999 and 2002
before SARS was ever detected in humans.
Against this backdrop, we noted the unusual patent prosecution efforts of
the CDC, when on April 25, 2003 they sought to patent the SARS coronavirus
isolated from humans that had reportedly transferred to humans during the
2002-2003 SARS outbreak in Asia. 35 U.S.C. §101 prohibits patenting nature. This legality did not deter CDC in their efforts. Their application, updated in 2007, ultimately issued as U.S. Patent
7,220,852 and constrained anyone not licensed by their patent from
manipulating SARS CoV, developing tests or kits to measure SARS
coronavirus in humans or working with their patented virus for therapeutic
use. Work associated with
this virus by their select collaborators included considerable amounts of
chimeric engineering, gain-of-function studies, viral characterization,
detection, treatment (both vaccine and therapeutic intervention), and
weaponization inquiries.
In short, with Baric’s U.S. Patent 6,593,111 (Claims 1 and 5) and CDC’s
‘852 patent (Claim 1), no research in the United States could be conducted
without permission or infringement.
We noted that gain-of-function specialist, Dr. Ralph Baric, was both the
recipient of millions of dollars of U.S. research grants from several
federal agencies but also sat on the World Health Organization’s
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) and the
Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG). In this capacity, he was both responsible for determining “novelty” of
clades of virus species but directly benefitted from determining
declarations of novelty in the form of new research funding authorizations
and associated patenting and commercial collaboration. Together with CDC, NIAID, WHO, academic and commercial parties (including
Johnson & Johnson; Sanofi and their several coronavirus patent holding
biotech companies; Moderna; Ridgeback; Gilead; Sherlock Biosciences; and,
others), a powerful group of interests constituted what we would suggest
are “interlocking directorates” under U.S. anti-trust laws.
These entities also were affiliated with the WHO’s Global Preparedness
Monitoring Board (GPMB) whose members were instrumental fin the Open
Philanthropy-funded global coronavirus pandemic “desk-top” exercise EVENT
201 in October 2019. This
event, funded by the principal investor in Sherlock Biosciences and
linking interlocking funding partner, the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation into the GPMB mandate for a respiratory disease global
preparedness exercise to be completed by September 2020 alerted us to
anticipate an “epidemic” scenario. We expected to see such a scenario emerge from Wuhan or Guangdong China,
northern Italy, Seattle, New York or a combination thereof, as Dr. Zhengli
Shi and Dr. Baric’s work on zoonotic transmission of coronavirus
identified overlapping mutations in coronavirus in bat populations located
in these areas.
This dossier is by no means exhaustive. It is, however, indicative the numerous criminal violations that may be
associated with the COVID-19 terrorism. All source materials are referenced herein. An additional detailed breakdown of all the of individuals, research
institutions, foundations, funding sources, and commercial enterprises can
be accessed upon request.
35 U.S.C. § 101
18 U.S.C. §2339 C et seq. –
Funding and Conspiring to Commit Acts of Terror
18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death
of American Citizens
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Lying to Congress
15 U.S.C. §1-3 – Conspiring to Criminal Commercial Activity
15 U.S.C. §8 – Market Manipulation and Allocation
15 U.S.C. § 19 – Interlocking Directorates
35 U.S.C. §200 - 206 – Disclosure of Government Interest
21 C.F.R. § 50.24 et seq., Illegal Clinical Trial
From Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion for the majority
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful ... composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We have "long held that this provision contains an important implicit
exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable." Mayo, 566 U.S., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1293 (internal quotation marks and
brackets omitted). Rather, "`they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work'" that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.
Id., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1293. As the Court has explained, without
this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of
patents would "tie up" the use of such tools and thereby "inhibit future
innovation premised upon them." Id., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1301. This
would be at odds with the very point of patents, which exist to promote
creation. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65
L.Ed.2d 144 (1980) (Products of nature are not created, and
"`manifestations... of nature [are] free to all men and reserved
exclusively to none'").[3]
In their majority opinion in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made it
abundantly clear that the Court had “long held” that nature was not
patentable. Merely isolating
DNA does not constitute patentable subject matter. In their patent, the CDC made false and misleading claims to the United
States Patent & Trademark Office by stating that, “A newly isolated human coronavirus has been identified as the causative
agent of SARS, and is termed SARS-CoV.”[4] No “causal” data was
provided for this statement.
When they filed their patent application on April 25, 2003 their first
claim (and the only one that survived to ultimate issuance over the
objection of the patent examiner in 2006 and 2007) was the genome for SARS
CoV.
While this patent is clearly illegal under 35 U.S.C. §101, not only did
the CDC insist on its granting over non-final and final rejections, but
they also continued to pay maintenance fees on the patent after the 2013
Supreme Court decision confirmed that it was illegal.
In addition, the CDC patented the detection of SARS CoV using a number of
methods including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction
(RT-PCR). With this patent,
they precluded anyone outside of their licensed or conspiring interest
from legally engaging in independent verification of their claim that they
had isolated a virus, that it was a causative agent for SARS, or that any
therapy could be effective against the reported pathogen.
It is important to note that the CDC’s patent applications were also
rejected in non-final and final rejections for ineligibility under 35
U.S.C. § 102 for being publicly disclosed prior to their own filing. In the first non-final rejection, the USPTO stated that the CDC’s genome
was published in four Genbank accession entries on April 14, 18, and 21,
2003 with identity ranging from 96.8% to 99.9% identical sequences.[5] Dr. Fauci knew, and failed
to disclose evidence that the CDC patent was illegal, based on work he had
funded in the years leading up to the SARS outbreak.
After seeking an illegal patent, petitioning to override the decision of
an examiner to reject it, and ultimately prevailing with the patent’s
grant, the CDC lied to the public by stating they were controlling the
patent so that it would be “publicly available”.[6] Tragically, this public
statement is falsified by the simple fact that their own publication in
Genbank had, in fact, made it public domain and thereby unpatentable. This fact, confirmed by patent examiners, was overridden by CDC in a paid
solicitation to override the law.
While not covered under 35 U.S.C. §101, Dr. Fauci’s abuse of the patent
law is detailed below. Of
note, however, is his willful and deceptive use of the term “vaccine” in
patents and public pronouncements to pervert the meaning of the term for
the manipulation of the public.
In the 1905 Jacobson v. Mass case, the court was clear that a PUBLIC
BENEFIT was required for a vaccine to be mandated. Neither Pfizer nor
Moderna have proved a disruption of transmission. In Jacobson v.
Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the court held that the context for their
opinion rested on the following principle:
“This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle
that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and
burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of
the state…”
The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly
acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral
infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the
capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of
a synthetic mRNA sequence. Therefore, the basis for the Massachusetts
statute and the Supreme Court’s determination is moot in this case.
Further, the USPTO, in its REJECTION of Anthony Fauci's HIV vaccine made
the following statement supporting their rejection of his bogus
"invention"
18 U.S.C. §2339 C et seq. – Funding and Conspiring to Commit Acts of Terror
Indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out—
(A) an act which constitutes
an offense within the scope of a treaty specified in subsection
(e)(7), as implemented by the United States, or
(B) any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily
injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an
active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the
purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a
population, or to compel a government or an international
organization to do or to abstain from doing any act….
By no later than April 11, 2005, Dr. Anthony Fauci was publicly
acknowledging the association of SARS with bioterror potential. Leveraging the fear of the anthrax bioterrorism of 2001, he publicly
celebrated the economic boon that domestic terror had directed towards his
budget. He specifically
stated that NIAID was actively funding research on a “SARS Chip” DNA
microarray to rapidly detect SARS (something that was not made available
during the current “pandemic”) and two candidate vaccines focused on the
SARS CoV spike protein.[7] Led by three Chinese
researchers under his employment – Zhi-yong Yang, Wing-pui Kong, and Yue
Huang – Fauci had at least one DNA vaccine in animal trials by 2004.[8] This team, part of the
Vaccine Research Center at NIAID, was primarily focused on HIV vaccine
development but was tasked to identify SARS vaccine candidates as
well. Working in
collaboration with Sanofi, Scripps Institute, Harvard, MIT and NIH, Dr.
Fauci’s decision to unilaterally promote vaccines as a primary
intervention for several designated “infectious diseases” precluded
proven therapies from being applied to the sick and
dying.[9]
The CDC and NIAID led by Anthony Fauci entered into trade among States
(including, but not limited to working with EcoHealth Alliance Inc.) and
with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the
Chinese Academy of Sciences) through the 2014 et seqNational
Institutes of Health Grant R01AI110964 to exploit their patent rights. This research was known to involve surface proteins in coronavirus that had
the capacity to directly infect human respiratory systems. In flagrant violation of the NIH moratorium on gain of function research,
NIAID and Ralph Baric persisted in working with chimeric coronavirus
components specifically to amplify the pathogenicity of the biologic
material.
By October 2013, the Wuhan Institute of Virology 1 coronavirus S1 spike
protein was described in NIAID’s funded work in China. This work involved NIAID, USAID, and Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth
Alliance. This work, funded
under R01AI079231, was pivotal in isolating and manipulating viral fragments
selected from sites across China which contained high risk for severe human
response.[10]
By March 2015, both the virulence of the S1 spike protein and the ACE II
receptor was known to present a considerable risk to human health. NIAID, EcoHealth Alliance and numerous researchers lamented the fact that
the public was not sufficiently concerned about coronavirus to adequately
fund their desired research.[11]
Dr. Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance offered the following
assessment:
“Daszak reiterated that, until an infectious disease crisis is very
real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely
ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need
to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a
pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and
the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage
to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at
the end of process, Daszak stated.”[12]
Economics will follow the hype.
The CDC and NIAID entered into trade among States (including, but not
limited to working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and with
foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the
Chinese Academy of Sciences represented by Zheng-Li Shi) through U19AI109761
(Ralph S. Baric), U19AI107810 (Ralph S. Baric), and National Natural Science
Foundation of China Award 81290341 (Zheng-Li Shi) et al. 2015-2016. These projects took place during a time when the work being performed was
prohibited by the United States National Institutes of Health.
The public was clearly advised of the dangers being presented by
NIAID-funded research by 2015 and 2016 when the Wuhan Institute of Virology
material was being manipulated at UNC in Ralph Baric’s lab.
“The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new,
non-natural risk,” agrees Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and
biodefence expert at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Both
Ebright and Wain-Hobson are long-standing critics of gain-of-function
research.
In their paper, the study authors also concede that funders may think
twice about allowing such experiments in the future. "Scientific review
panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on
circulating strains too risky to pursue," they write, adding that
discussion is needed as to "whether these types of chimeric virus studies
warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved”.
But Baric and others say the research did have benefits. The study
findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear
and present danger”, says Peter Daszak, who co-authored the 2013 paper.
Daszak is president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an international network of
scientists, headquartered in New York City, that samples viruses from
animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe.
Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models
are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus,
Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens
should be prioritized for further research attention.”[13]
Knowing that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (through CDC,
NIH, NIAID, and their funded laboratories and commercial partners) had
patents on each proposed element of medical counter measures and their
funding, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Gao (China CDC), and Dr. Elias (Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation) conspired to commit acts of terror on the global
population – including the citizens of the United States – when, in
September 2019, they published the following mandate:
“Countries, donors and multilateral institutions must be prepared for the
worst. A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen
(whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released)
poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral
institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative
vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum
antivirals and appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions. All countries
must develop a system for immediately sharing genome sequences of any new
pathogen for public health purposes along with the means to share limited
medical countermeasures across countries.
Progress indicator(s) by September 2020
• Donors and countries commit and identify timelines for: financing and
development of a universal influenza vaccine, broad spectrum antivirals,
and targeted therapeutics. WHO and its Member States develop options for
standard procedures and timelines for sharing of sequence data, specimens,
and medical countermeasures for pathogens other than influenza.
• Donors, countries and multilateral institutions develop a multi-year
plan and approach for strengthening R&D research capacity, in advance
of and during an epidemic.
• WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the International Federation
of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, academic and other partners
identify strategies for increasing capacity and integration of social
science approaches and researchers across the entire preparedness/response
continuum.”[14]
As if to confirm the utility of the September 2019 demand for “financing
and development of” vaccine and the fortuitous SARS CoV-2 alleged outbreak
in December of 2019, Dr. Fauci began gloating that his fortunes for
additional funding were likely changing for the better. In a February 2020 interview in STAT, he was quoted as follows:
““The emergence of the new virus is going to change that figure, likely
considerably, Fauci said. “I don’t know how much it’s going to be. But I
think it’s going to generate more sustained interest in coronaviruses
because it’s very clear that coronaviruses can do really interesting
things.””[15]
18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death
of American Citizens
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover "domestic," as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has intimidated and coerced a civilian population and sought to influence the policy of a government by intimidation and coercion.
With no corroboration, Dr. Anthony Fauci promoted[16] Professor Neil Ferguson’s computer simulation derived claims that,
“The world is facing the most serious public health crisis in generations. Here we provide concrete estimates of the scale of the threat countries now face.
“We use the latest estimates of severity to show that policy strategies which aim to mitigate the epidemic might halve deaths and reduce peak healthcare demand by two-thirds, but that this will not be enough to prevent health systems being overwhelmed. More intensive, and socially disruptive interventions will therefore be required to suppress transmission to low levels. It is likely such measures – most notably, large scale social distancing – will need to be in place for many months, perhaps until a vaccine becomes available.” [17]
Reporting to the President that as many as 2.2 million deaths may result from a pathogen that had not yet been isolated and could not be measured with any accuracy, Dr. Fauci intimidated and coerced the population and the government into reckless, untested, and harmful acts creating irreparable harm to lives and livelihoods.[18] Neither the Imperial College nor the “independent” Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (principally funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had any evidence of success in estimating previous burdens from coronavirus but, without consultation or peer-review, Dr. Fauci adopted their terrifying estimates as the basis for interventions that are explicitly against medical advice. >
- The imposition of social distancing was based on computer simulation and environmental models with NO disease transmission evidence whatsoever.
- The imposition of face mask wearing was directly against controlled clinical trial evidence and against the written policy in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”
- In both the Imperial College and the IHME simulations, quarantines were modeled for the sick, not the healthy.
Insisting on vaccines while blockading the emergency use of proven pharmaceutical interventions may have contributed to the death of many patients and otherwise healthy individuals.
Using the power of NIAID during the alleged pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci actively suppressed proven medical countermeasures used by, and validated in scientific proceedings, that offered alternatives to the products funded by his conspiring entities for which he had provided direct funding and for whom he would receive tangible and intangible benefit.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Lying to Congress
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter
within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial
branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully—
(1)
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a
material fact;
(2)
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation; or
(3)
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain
any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if
the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined
in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the
matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or
section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section
shall be not more than 8 years.
On October 22, 2020, the United States Government Accountability Office
(GAO) published a report entitled:
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH:
NIH Should Publicly Report More Information about the Licensing of
Its Intellectual Property. In this document, the
authors reported that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) received,
“up to $2 billion in royalties from its contributions to 34 drugs sold
from 1991-2019.”[22]
A casual review of the NIH Office of Technology Transfer report of active
licenses[23]appears to conflict with the GAO report on several important facts. Conspicuously absent from the GAO report are over 30 patents associated
with active compounds generating billions of dollars in revenue. Why would it be that the GAO and the NIH couldn’t agree on something as
simple as drugs generating income for NIH?
Since the passage of the Bayh Dole Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980), federally funded research has been
an economic bonanza for U.S. universities, federal agencies, and their
selected patronage. For the
first decade following Bayh Dole, NIH funding doubled from $3.4 billion to
$7.1 billion. A decade
later, it doubled again to $15.6 billion. In the wake of September 2001, the National Institute for Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID) saw its direct budget increase over 300%
without accounting for DARPA funds of as much as $1.7 billion annually
from 2005 forward. In 2020,
NIH’s budget was over $41 billion.
What has become of the $763 billion of taxpayer funds allocated to making
America healthier since inventors have been commercially
incentivized? Who has been
enriched?
The answer, regrettably, is that no accountability exists to answer these
questions.
The NIH is the named owner of at least 138 patents since 1980.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services is the named
owner of at least 2,600 patents.
NIAID grants or collaboration have resulted in 2,655 patents and patent
applications of which only 95 include an assignment to the Department of
Health and Human Services as an owner. Most of these patents are assigned to universities thereby making the
ultimate commercial beneficiaries entirely opaque. One of the largest holders is SIGA Technologies (NASDAQ: SIGA) who, while
publicly reporting close affiliation with NIAID, is not referenced in the
NIH GAO report. SIGA’s CEO,
Dr. Phillip L. Gomez spent 9 years at NIAID developing its vaccine program
for HIV, SARS, Ebola, West Nile Virus, and Influenza before exiting to
commercial ventures. While
their technology is clearly derived from NIAID science, the company
reports revenue from NIAID but no royalty or commercial payments to NIH or
any of its programs.
NIAID’s Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci is listed as an inventor on 8 granted
U.S. patents. None of them
are reported in NIAID, NIH, or GAO reports of active licensing despite the
fact that Dr. Fauci reportedly was compelled to get paid for his
interleukin-2 “invention” – payments he reportedly donated to an unnamed
charity.[24]
Of the 21 patents listed in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA)
Orange book itemized in the GAO report, none of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s
patents are listed. Furthermore, none of the NIAID patents are listed despite clear evidence
that Gilead Sciences and Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a division of Johnson
& Johnson) have generated over $2 billion annually from sales that
were the direct result of NIAID funded science. Missing from the GAO report are 2 patents for Velclade® which has been
generating sales in excess of $2.18 billion annually for several
years. None of the patents
for Yescarta® are listed in the GAO report. None of the Lumoxiti® patents are listed in the GAO report.
None of the Kepivance®
patents are listed in the GAO report. In violation of 37 USC §410.10 and 35 USC §202(a), over 13 of the 21
patents in the GAO report fail to disclose government interest despite
being the direct result of NIH funding.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Own Patent Track Record:
US Patent 6,190,656 and 6,548,055
Immunologic enhancement with intermittent interleukin-2
therapy
A method for activating a mammalian immune system entails a series of
IL-2 administrations that are effected intermittently over an extended
period. Each administration of IL-2 is sufficient to allow spontaneous DNA
synthesis in peripheral blood or lymph node cells of the patient to
increase and peak, and each subsequent administration follows the
preceding administration in the series by a period of time that is
sufficient to allow IL-2 receptor expression in peripheral or lymph node
blood of the patient to increase, peak and then decrease to 50% of peak
value. This intermittent IL-2 therapy can be combined with another therapy
which targets a specific disease state, such as an anti-retroviral therapy
comprising, for example, the administration of AZT, ddI or interferon
alpha. In addition, IL-2 administration can be employed to facilitate in
situ transduction of T cells in the context of gene therapy. By this
approach the cells are first activated in vivo via the aforementioned IL-2
therapy, and transduction then is effected by delivering a genetically
engineered retroviral vector directly to the patient.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
08/487,075, filed Jun. 7, 1995, now abandoned, which is a continuation in
part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/063,315, filed May 19, 1993,
now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,419,900, and U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 08/452,440, filed May 26, 1995, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,696,079,
which is the National Stage filed under 35 USC 371 of PCT/US94/05397,
filed May 19, 1994, the contents of which are incorporated herein by
reference.
Filed May 19, 1993
Issued a Final Rejection January 20, 1998. Rejected after abandonment August 14, 1998, and April 12, 1999. Reduced and modified claims granted May 8, 2000.
This family of patents was the basis of Fauci’s lie to the
British Medical Journal in which he falsely stated:
“Dr Anthony Fauci told the BMJ that as a government
employee he was required by law to put his name on the patent for the
development of interleukin 2 and was also required by law to receive
part of the payment the government received for use of the patent. He
said that he felt it was inappropiate (sic) to receive payment and
donated the entire amount to charity.”[25]
He was not “required by law” to commit fraud on the patent office and
then get paid for it!
US Patent 6,911,527 HIV related peptides
This invention is the discovery of novel specific epitopes and antibodies
associated with long term survival of HIV-1 infections. These epitopes and
antibodies have use in preparing vaccines for preventing HIV-1 infection
or for controlling progression to AIDS.
Filed May 6, 1999
Rejected as unpatentable January 22, 2003. Issued with a final rejection on July 15, 2004 after submitting reconsideration requests. Modified and restricted claims allowed September 29, 2004.
US Patent 7,368,114
Fusion protein including of CD4
Novel recombinant polypeptides are disclosed herein that include a CD4
polypeptide ligated at its C-terminus with a portion of an immunoglobulin
comprising a hinge region and a constant domain of a mammalian
immunoglobulin heavy chain. The portion or the IgG is fused at its
C-terminus with a polypeptide comprising a tailpiece from the C-terminus
of the heavy chain of an IgA antibody ara tailpiece from a C-terminus of
the heavy chain of an IgM antibody. Also disclosed herein are methods for
using these CD4 fusion proteins.
Filed October 24, 2002
Rejected as unpatentable August 18, 2006. Paid appeal to overturn examiner’s findings February 15, 2007. Rejected again May 11, 2007. On October 10, 2007 applicants further narrowed the construction of
what was clearly not a patent and the USPTO granted less than half the
claims that had been sought in the original filing.
US Patent 9,896,509, 9,193,790 and
9,441,041 Use of antagonists of the interaction between HIV GP120 and
.alpha.4.beta.7 integrin
Methods are provided for the treatment of a HIV infection. The methods
can include administering to a subject with an HIV infection a
therapeutically effective amount of an agent that interferes with the
interaction of gp120 and .alpha.4 integrin, such as a .alpha.4.beta.1 or
.alpha.4.beta.7 integrin antagonist, thereby treating the HIV infection.
In several examples, the .alpha.4 integrin antagonist is a monoclonal
antibody that specifically binds to a .alpha.4, .beta.1 or .beta.7
integrin subunit or a cyclic hexapeptide with the amino acid sequence of
CWLDVC. Methods are also provided to reduce HIV replication or infection.
The methods include contacting a cell with an effective amount of an agent
that interferes with the interaction of gp120 and .alpha.4 integrin, such
as a .alpha.4.beta.1 or .alpha.4.beta.7 integrin antagonist. Moreover,
methods are provided for determining if an agent is useful to treat
HIV.
Rejected May 22, 2017, as Double Patenting. In their response, the applicants acknowledge the illegal act and seek
only those components of their application that extend beyond the life
of the issued patents. On
October 11, 2017, the limited claims were issued.
A sample of the convoluted flow of funds that evades public
disclosure.
U.S. Patent 8,999,351 was issued to Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation
in Burnaby, British Columbia. In their patent, they disclose that their research was supported by a
grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (Grant
HHSN266200600012C). Ironically, this $23 million grant was awarded in 2006 to Alnylam
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., not to Tekmira.[26]
In 2012, Alnylam agreed to pay Tekmira $65 million to settle legal
disputes including a $1 billion damages claim for “relentless and
egregious” misappropriation of Tekmira’s trade secrets. From the patent filing’s earliest priority of November 10, 2008, there is
no public record stating Tekmira as the beneficiary of this NIAID
grant. Notwithstanding, the
lipid nanoparticle technology developed from this grant is the technology
now used in the Moderna COVID-19 intervention. In their 10-Q filing, Alnylam reports to have a license to technology
from Arbutus – formerly Tekmira – which has accused Acuitas of
misappropriating trade secrets and licensing them to Moderna and Pfizer’s
collaboration with BioNTech.
Additional references can be found at:
https://www.ott.nih.gov/nih-and-its-role-technology-transfer
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2017/206288Orig1s000TAltr.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/710287.pdf
15 U.S.C. §1-3 – Conspiring to Criminal Commercial Activity
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the
several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be
illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in
any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be
deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished
by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any
other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10
years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the
court.
The National Institute of Health’s grant AI23946-08 issued to Dr. Ralph
Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (officially
classified as affiliated with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID by at least 2003)
began the work on synthetically altering the
Coronaviridae
(the coronavirus family) for the express purpose of general research,
pathogenic enhancement, detection, manipulation, and potential
therapeutic interventions targeting the same. As early as May 21, 2000, Dr. Baric and UNC sought to patent critical
sections of the coronavirus family for their commercial benefit.[27] In one of the several
papers derived from work sponsored by this grant, Dr. Baric published
what he reported to be the full length cDNA of SARS CoV in which it was
clearly stated that SAR CoV was based on a composite of DNA
segments.
“Using a panel of contiguous cDNAs that span the entire genome, we have
assembled a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV Urbani strain, and have
rescued molecularly cloned SARS viruses (infectious clone SARS-CoV) that
contained the expected marker mutations inserted into the component
clones.”[28]
On April 19, 2002 – the Spring before the first SARS outbreak in Asia –
Christopher M. Curtis, Boyd Yount, and Ralph Baric filed an application
for U.S. Patent 7,279,372 for a method of producing recombinant
coronavirus. In the first
public record of the claims, they sought to patent a means of producing,
“an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus.” This work was supported by the NIH grant referenced above and
GM63228. In short, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services was involved in the funding of
amplifying the infectious nature of coronavirus between 1999 and 2002
before SARS was ever detected in humans.
Against this backdrop, we noted the unusual patent prosecution efforts of
the CDC, when on April 25, 2003, they sought to patent the SARS
coronavirus isolated from humans that had reportedly transferred to humans
during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak in Asia. 35 U.S.C. §101 prohibits patenting nature. This legality did not deter CDC in their efforts. Their application, updated in 2007, ultimately issued as U.S. Patent
7,220,852 and constrained anyone not licensed by their patent from
manipulating SARS CoV, developing tests or kits to measure SARS
coronavirus in humans or working with their patented virus for therapeutic
use. Work associated with
this virus by their select collaborators included considerable amounts of
chimeric engineering, gain-of-function studies, viral characterization,
detection, treatment (both vaccine and therapeutic intervention), and
weaponization inquiries.
In short, with Baric’s U.S. Patent 6,593,111 (Claims 1 and 5) and CDC’s
‘852 patent (Claim 1), no research in the United States could be conducted
without permission or infringement.
We noted that gain-of-function specialist, Dr. Ralph Baric, was both the
recipient of millions of dollars of U.S. research grants from several
federal agencies but also sat on the World Health Organization’s
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) and the
Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG). In this capacity, he was both responsible for determining “novelty” of
clades of virus species but directly benefitted from determining
declarations of novelty in the form of new research funding authorizations
and associated patenting and commercial collaboration. Together with CDC, NIAID, WHO, academic and commercial parties (including
Johnson & Johnson; Sanofi and their several coronavirus patent holding
biotech companies; Moderna; Ridgeback; Gilead; Sherlock Biosciences; and,
others), a powerful group of interests constituted what we would suggest
are “interlocking directorates” under U.S. anti-trust laws.
|
1986-1990 |
NIAID Grant AI 23946 leading to patent U.S. 7,279,327 “Methods
for Producing Recombinant Coronavirus” Filed 2002 and issued
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
The paper first published from the NIAID grant is
https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC7109931&blobtype=pdf |
|
1990 |
Pfizer files U.S. Patent 6,372,224 on a vaccine for the
S-protein on coronavirus November 14, 2000, which was
abandoned April 2010 making it public domain. |
|
1990s |
Work focused on CoV association with cardiomyopathy (see
above) |
|
|
Early reference to the “emergence” of CoV as a
respiratory pathogen in
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-1899-0_91.pdf |
|
2000 |
Ralph Baric
AI23946 and GM63228 from the National Institutes of Health
actively working recombinant CoV |
|
2001 |
National Institute of Health, Allergy and Infectious diseases.
“Reverse Genetics with a Coronavirus Infectious cDNA Construct.”
4/1/2001-3/31/005 $1.0 million total costs/yr. RS Baric, PI |
|
2002 |
Asia CoV SARS outbreak |
|
2003 |
April 25, 2003 CDC Patent filed and ultimately becomes
US7,220,852 (the patent on the RNA sequence) and 7,776,521 (the
patent on the testing methodology. These patents give the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services the ability to control the commercial exploitation of
SARS coronavirus |
|
|
Dr. Anthony Fauci appointed to the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation’s Global Grand Challenges Scientific Advisory Board
(served through 2010). |
|
|
April 28, 2003 Sequoia Pharmaceuticals $953K for pathogen
response and patent US7,151,163
https://www.sbir.gov/node/305319 |
|
|
July 21, 2003 Ralph Baric’s team (using AI23946 and GM63228)
file U.S. Patent 7,618,802 which issued on November 17,
2009.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7618802B2 |
|
|
Dana Farber Cancer Institute files U.S. Patent 7,750,123 on a
monoclonal antibody to neutralize SARS CoV. This research is supported by several NIH grants including
National Institutes of Health Grants A128785, A148436, and
A1053822. |
|
2004 |
January 6, 2004 – SARS and Bioterrorism linked at
Bioterrorism and Emerging Infectious Diseases: antimicrobials,
therapeutics and immune modulators. https://tks.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.meeting.program&meetingid=706 |
|
|
At this conference, the term “The New Normal” was
introduced by Merck |
|
|
FAUCI AND BARIC start making money!!! National
Institutes of Health, Allergy and Infectious Diseases. SARS
Reverse Genetics. AI059136-01. $1.7 million total costs, RS Baric,
PI. 10% effort. 4/1/04- 3/31/09. The project develops a SARS-CoV
full length infectious cDNA, the development of SARS-CoV replicon
particles expressing heterologous genes, and seeks to adapt
SARS-CoV to mice, producing a pathogenic mouse model for SARS-CoV
infection. |
|
|
National Institutes of Health, Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
R01. Remodeling the SARS Coronavirus Genome Regulatory Network. RS
Baric, PI 10% effort. 7/1/04-6/30/09. $2.1 million |
|
|
November 22, 2004 University of Hong Kong patents SARS associated
spike protein on CoV and pursues patent US 7,491,489 |
|
2005 |
DARPA gets in on the game Synthetic Coronaviruses. Biohacking:
Biological Warfare Enabling Technologies, June 2005. Washington,
DC. DARPA/MITRE sponsored event. Invited Speaker |
|
|
Review timeline from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO_EeYB0i0U
and
https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/20APRBotWslides.pdf |
|
2008 |
Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 commences with $10,189,682 to UNC
Chapel Hill https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/AwardDetail?arg_awardNum=U54AI057157&arg_ProgOfficeCode=104 |
|
2009 |
Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $5,448,656 to UNC
Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID) |
|
2010 |
Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $8,747,142 to UNC
Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID) |
|
|
Patent issuance for SARS coronavirus patents peak post the Asia
outbreak at 391 issued patents. |
|
|
August 6, 2010, Moderna (prior to its establishment) files U.S.
Patent 9,447,164 which attracted the investment of (and
“inventorship” for) venture capitalists at Flagship
Ventures. This
patent grew out of the work of Dr. Jason P. Schrum of Harvard
Medical School supported by National Science Foundation Grant
#0434507. While
the application claims priority to August 2010, the application
didn’t get finalized until October, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the USPTO issued a non-final rejection on
this original patent rejecting all claims. |
|
2011 |
Crucell joined the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson
& Johnson in February taking with it all of its SARS
technology. |
|
|
Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $7,344,820 to UNC
Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID) |
|
2012 |
MERS isolated in Egypt |
|
|
Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $7,627,657 to UNC
Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID) |
|
2013 |
Biodefense Grant U54 AI057157 continues with $7,226,237 to UNC
Chapel Hill (non-competitive grant from NIAID) |
|
2014 |
April 23, 2014, Moderna files patent on nucleic acid vaccine with
Patents US9872900 and US10022435 |
|
2015 |
Moderna signs a vaccine development agreement with NIAID and
executes it with the lead on the mRNA-1273 lead developer and
inventor Guiseppe Ciaramella. |
|
|
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html |
|
2016 |
NIH through Scripps Institute and Dartmouth College file patent
application WO 2018081318A1 “Prefusion Coronavirus Spike Proteins
and their Use” disclosing mRNA technology that overlaps (and is
used in tandem with) Moderna’s technology.
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2018081318A1/en Lead Inventor
Barney Scott Graham was well known to Moderna as he’s the person
at NIH that Moderna “e-mailed” to get the sequence for SARS CoV-2
according to Moderna’s report here
(“In January 2020, once it was discovered that the infection in
Wuhan was caused by a novel coronavirus, Bancel quickly
emailed Dr. Barney Graham, deputy director of the Vaccine
Research Center at the National Institutes of Health, asking
him to send the genetic sequence for the virus.”) https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/05/26/vacc-m26.html
|
|
|
In addition, co-inventor Jason McLellan worked with Graham on a
vaccine patent jointly owned with the Chinese government filed in
Australia in 2013
https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2014231357A1/en?inventor=Jason+MCLELLAN. |
|
2017 |
August – Sanofi buys Protein Science Corp with considerable SARS
patent holdings |
|
2018 |
June – Sanofi buys Ablynx with considerable SARS patent
holdings |
|
2019 |
March,
https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/sherlock-biosciences-licenses-wyss-technology-to-create-affordable-molecular-diagnostics/
funded by Open Philanthropy – the same organization that would be
the financial sponsor of the Event 201 “table-top” exercise that
laid out the entire “pandemic” plan in October 2019. |
15 U.S.C. §8 – Market Manipulation and Allocation
Every combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is
declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void when the
same is made by or between two or more persons or
corporations, either of whom, as agent or principal, is engaged in
importing any article from any foreign country into the
United States, and when such combination, conspiracy,
trust, agreement, or contract is intended to operate in restraint
of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade
or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of
the United States of any article or articles imported or
intended to be imported into the United States, or of any
manufacture into which such imported article enters or is intended to
enter. Every person who shall be engaged in the importation of
goods or any commodity from any foreign country in violation of this
section, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the
same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court
of the United States such person shall be fined in a
sum not less than $100 and not exceeding $5,000, and shall be further
punished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not
less than three months nor exceeding twelve months.
Through non-competitive grant awards to UNC Chapel Hill’s Ralph Baric, to
selection of the Bio-Safety Level 4 laboratory locations, to the setting
of prices for Remdesivir and mRNA therapies from Moderna and Pfizer,
NIAID, CDC, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have been
involved in allocating Federal funds to conspiring parties without
independent review.
Around March 12, 2020, in an effort to enrich their own economic interests
by way of securing additional funding from both Federal and Foundation
actors, the CDC and NIAID’s Dr Fauci elected to suspend testing and classify
COVID-19 by capricious symptom presentation alone. Forcing the public to rely on The COVID Tracking Project – funded by the
Bloomberg, Zuckerberg and Gates Foundation and presented by a media outlet
(The Atlantic) – not a public health agency – Dr. Fauci used fraudulent testing
technology (RT-PCR) to conflate “COVID cases” with positive PCR tests in
the living while insisting that COVID deaths be counted by symptoms
alone. This perpetuated a
market demand for his desired vaccine agenda which was recited by him and
his conspiring parties around the world until the present. Not surprisingly, this was
necessitated by the apparent fall in cases that constituted Dr. Fauci’s and
others’ criteria for depriving citizens of their 1st Amendment rights.
15 U.S.C. § 19 – Interlocking Directorates
(1) No person shall, at the same time, serve as a director or officer in any two corporations (other than banks, banking
associations, and trust companies) that are—
(A) engaged in whole or in part in commerce; and
(B)
by virtue of their business and location of operation, competitors, so
that the elimination of competition by agreement between them
would constitute a violation of any of the antitrust laws; if each of
the corporations has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating
more than $10,000,000 as adjusted pursuant to paragraph (5) of this
subsection.
Dr. Fauci is on the Leadership Council of the Bill and Malinda Gates
Global Vaccine Action Plan
Dr. Fauci while controlling the economic dispensation of Federal research
funding, Dr. Fauci has been, and continues to be, on the World Health
Organization’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. He is joined on this board by the conflicted donor from the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation’s Dr. Chris Elias and the State Council of
China’s Dr. George F. Gao of the Chinese CDC. This GPMB stipulated that all member states must take part in a global
simulation of the release of a respiratory pathogen.
Dr. Baric is one of the primary beneficiaries of U.S. Federal funds, runs
a BSL-4 facility and sits on the International Committee on Taxonomy of
Virus Coronaviridae Working Group tasked to confirm the presence of
absence of the pathogen for which he is directly compensated.
As referenced in the section covering violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 above, numerous undisclosed commercial relationships exist between funded researchers, their funding agencies, and commercial interests in which disclosed and undisclosed commercial terms exist. A complete list of all potential implicated parties is listed in the section below entitled “The Commercial Actors”.
It appears that, during the period of patent enforcement and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on genetic material were illegal, the CDC and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases led by Anthony Fauci (hereinafter “NIAID” and "Dr Fauci", respectively) entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with Ecohealth Alliance Inc.) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences) through the 2014 et seq National Institutes of Health Grant R01AI110964 to exploit their patent rights.
It further appears that, during the period of patent enforcement and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on genetic material was illegal, the CDC and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (hereinafter “NIAID”) entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences represented by Zheng-Li Shi) through U19AI109761 (Ralph S. Baric), U19AI107810 (Ralph S. Baric), and National Natural Science Foundation of China Award 81290341 (Zheng-Li Shi) et al. 2015-2016.
and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on generic material was illegal, the CDC and NIAID entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and with foreign nations to conduct chimeric construction of novel coronavirus material with specific virulence properties prior to, during, and following the determination made by the National Institutes for Health in October 17, 2014 that this work was not sufficiently understood for its biosecurity and safety standards.
In this inquiry, it is presumed that the CDC and its associates were: a) fully aware of the work being performed using their patented technology; b) entered into explicit or implicit agreements including licensing, or other consideration; and, c) willfully engaged one or more foreign interests to carry forward the exploitation of their proprietary technology when the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that such patents were illegal and when the National Institutes of Health issued a moratorium on such research.
Reportedly, in January 2018, the U.S. Embassy in China sent investigators to Wuhan Institute of Virology and found that, “During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.” The Washington Post reported that this information was contained in a cable dated 19 January 2018. Over a year later, in June 2019, the CDC conducted an inspection of Fort Detrick’s U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (hereinafter “USAMRIID”) and ordered it closed after alleging that their inspection found biosafety hazards. A report in the journal Nature in 2003 (423(6936): 103) reported cooperation between CDC and USAMRIID on coronavirus research followed by considerable subsequent collaboration. The CDC, for what appear to be the same type of concern identified in Wuhan, elected to continue work with the Chinese government while closing the U.S. Army facility.
The CDC reported the first case of SARS-CoV like illness in the United States in January 2020 with the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service reporting 650 clinical cases and 210 tests. Given that the suspected pathogen was first implicated in official reports on December 31, 2019, one can only conclude that CDC: a) had the mechanism and wherewithal to conduct tests to confirm the existence of a “novel coronavirus”; or, b) did not have said mechanism and falsely reported the information in January. It tests credulity to suggest that the WHO or the CDC could manufacture and distribute tests for a “novel” pathogen when their own subsequent record on development and deployment of tests has been shown to be without reliability.
35 U.S.C. §200 - 206 – Disclosure of Government Interest
35 U.S.C. §202 (c)(6)
An obligation on the part of the contractor, in the event a United
States patent application is filed by or on its behalf or by any assignee
of the contractor, to include within the specification of such
application and any patent issuing thereon, a statement specifying that
the invention was made with Government support and
that the Government has certain rights in the invention.
Over 5000 patents and patent applications have included reference to SARS
Coronavirus dating back to priority dates of 1998. They are summarized below.
mRNA-1273 – the experimental vaccine developed by Moderna for COVID-19 –
uses the LNP technology that Moderna thought it had licensed from Acuitas
Therapeutics Inc., a firm developed by a former principal of Arbutus’
prior company Tekmira. That
license did not authorize Moderna to use the technology for the COVID-19
vaccine.
M·CAM and Knowledge Ecology International have independently confirmed
that Moderna has violated U.S. law in failing to disclose the U.S.
government’s funding interest in their patents and patent
applications. While this
negligence impacts all of Moderna’s over 130 granted U.S. patents, it is
particularly problematic for U.S. Patent 10,702,600 (‘600) which is the
patent relating to, “a messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) comprising an
open reading frame encoding a betacoronavirus (BetaCoV) S protein or S
protein subunit formulated in a lipid nanoparticle.” The specific claims addressing the pivot to the SARS Coronavirus were
patented
on March 28, 2019 – 9 months before the SARS CoV-2 outbreak!
Both the patent and the DARPA funding for the technology were disclosed
in scientific publication (New England Journal of Medicine) but the
government funds were not acknowledged in the patent.
In 2013, the Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics
(ADEPT) program awarded grant funding to Moderna Therapeutics for the
development of a new type of vaccine based on messenger RNA. The initial DARPA grant was W911NF-13-1-0417. The company used that technology to develop its COVID-19 vaccine,
currently undergoing Phase I clinical trials in conjunction with
NIH.[29]
Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rules, contractor to the
Federal Government must provide information regarding intellectual
property infringement issues as part of their contract. Under FAR §27.201-1(c) and (d), the Government both requires a notice of
infringement or potential infringement as well as retention of economic
liability for patent infringements. Specifically, in FAR §52.227.3 (a), the “Contractor shall indemnify the
Government and its officers, agents, and employees against liability,
including costs for infringement of any United States Patent…”. In addition to the patents cited by the USPTO in their examination of
‘600, M·CAM has identified fourteen other issued patents preceding the
‘600 patent which were used by patent examiners to limit patents arising
from the same funded research including patents sought by CureVac.
In short, while Moderna enjoys hundreds of millions of dollars of funding
allegiance and advocacy from Anthony Fauci and his NIAID, since its
inception, it has been engaged in illegal patent activity and demonstrated
contempt for U.S. Patent law. To make matters worse, the U.S. Government has given it financial backing
in the face of undisclosed infringement risks potentially contributing to
the very infringement for which they are indemnified.
21 C.F.R. § 50.24 et seq., Illegal Clinical Trial
It is unlawful to conduct medical research (even in the case of
emergency) without a series of steps taken to:
a.
Establish the research with a duly authorized and independent
institutional review board;
b.
Secure informed consent of all participants including a statement of
risks and benefits; and,
c.
Engage in consultation with the community in which the study is to be
conducted.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has forced upon the healthy population of the United
States an unlawful clinical trial in which the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services are extrapolating epidemiologic data. No informed consent has been sought or secured for any of the “medical
countermeasures” forced upon the population and no independent review
board – as defined by the statute – has been empaneled.
Through April 2020, the official recommendation by the Journal of the American Medical Association was unambiguous.
“Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect
themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no
evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are
effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”[30]
Part of that lack of evidence in fact showed that cloth facemasks
actually increased influenza-linked illness.[31]
In contravention to established science, States,
municipalities, and businesses have violated the legal requirements for
the promulgation of medical counter measures during a public health
emergency stating a “belief” that face masks limit the spread of SARS
CoV-2. To date, not a single study has confirmed that a mask
prevented the transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.
All parties mandating the use of facemasks are not only willfully
ignoring established science but are engaging in what amounts to a whole
population clinical trial. This conclusion is reached by the fact
that facemask use and COVID-19 incidence are being reported in scientific
opinion pieces promoted by the United States Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and others.[32]
Social distancing of up to 6 feet has been promoted as a means of
preventing person-to-person transmission of influenza-like viruses.
While one study hypothesized that infection could happen in a 6 foot
range, the study explicitly states that person-to-person transfer was not tested and viability of the virus at 6 feet was not even a subject of the
investigation.[33] That did not stop the misrepresentation of the study to be used as
the basis for an unverified medical counter measure of social
distancing. To date, no study has established the efficacy of social
distancing to modify the transmission of SARS CoV-2. Public health
officials have referenced:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5907354/#CR43
In contravention to established science, States,
municipalities, and businesses have violated the legal requirements for
the promulgation of medical counter measures during a public health
emergency stating a “belief” that social distancing of a healthy
population limits the spread of SARS CoV-2. To date, not a single
study has confirmed that social distancing of any population prevented the
transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.
It is unlawful under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., to advertise
that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless
you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when
appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that
the claims are true at the time they are made. As a result, every
party promoting the use of face masks is violating the FTC
Act.
All of these laws have been broken. All relevant authorities in the United States must cease and desist the use of face masks until the matters above are rectified.
- U.S. Provisional
Application No. 60/206,537, filed May 21, 2000
- https://www.pnas.org/content/100/22/12995
- Association for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013)
- U.S. Patent 7,220,852
- USPTO Non-Final Rejection
File #10822904, September 7, 2006, page 4.
- https://apnews.com/article/145b4e8d156cddc93e996ae52dc24ec0
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3320336/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095382/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
- Ge, XY., Li, JL., Yang,
XL. et al. Isolation and characterization of a bat
SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature 503, 535–538
(2013).
- Forum on Medical and
Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events; Forum on Drug
Discovery, Development, and Translation; Forum on Microbial Threats; Board
on Health Sciences Policy; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine;
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Rapid Medical
Countermeasure Response to Infectious Diseases: Enabling Sustainable
Capabilities Through Ongoing Public- and Private-Sector Partnerships:
Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Feb
12. 6, Developing MCMs for Coronaviruses. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK349040/
- Ibid.
- https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-%201.18787
- https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf
(page 8)
- https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/10/fluctuating-funding-and-flagging-interest-hurt-coronavirus-research/
- https://www.cato.org/blog/did-mitigation-save-two-million-lives
- https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/
- https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/823916343/coronavirus-task-force-set-to-detail-the-data-that-led-to-extension-of-guideline
- https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2017/01/IHME-Announcement
- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694?fbclid=IwAR2RE-c4V-fhUodui0JQRbiHRcgEJuDKG_21N4oL5zAfciQfWCyHAsetJmo
- https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/
- https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-21-52
- https://www.ott.nih.gov/reportsstats/hhs-license-based-vaccines-therapeutics
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545012/
- Ibid.
- https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/alnylam-awarded-23-million-us-government-contract-to-develop-rnai-therapeutics-186097
- U.S. Provisional
Application No. 60/206,537, filed May 21, 2000
- https://www.pnas.org/content/100/22/12995
- https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11446
- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
- https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
- Werner E. Bischoff,
Katrina Swett, Iris Leng, Timothy R. Peters, Exposure to Influenza Virus
Aerosols During Routine Patient Care, The Journal of Infectious
Diseases, Volume 207, Issue 7, 1 April 2013, Pages 1037–1046, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jis773
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
Dr. David Martin’s Website: https://www.davidmartin.world/
Dr. David Martin’s Daily Show on the Social Platform: Activate Humanity
Dr. David Martin's Fauci/COVID-19 dossier documenting the following crimes:
35 U.S.C. § 101
18 U.S.C. §2339 C et seq. – Funding and
Conspiring to Commit Acts of Terror
18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of
Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens
18 U.S.C.
§ 1001 – Lying to Congress
15 U.S.C. §1-3 – Conspiring to Criminal
Commercial Activity
15 U.S.C. §8 – Market Manipulation and
Allocation
15 U.S.C. § 19 – Interlocking Directorates
35 U.S.C.
§200 - 206 – Disclosure of Government Interest
21 C.F.R. § 50.24 et
seq., Illegal Clinical Trial
The Commercial Actors
A Timeline of Selected Federal Funding for SARS Coronavirus
Dr. David Martin's SARS CoV Patent Corpus Literature Review reveals over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment